Ben Clemens Top 50 Free Agents Chat

Ben Clemens: Hey everyone, welcome to the chat.

Ben Clemens: I’ll try to get to as many questions as possible today, but I’m also going to try to avoid double-dipping on players, so if I don’t answer yours, there’s a decent chance that I already have. There are only so many free agents and already so many teams, I’ll probably get to them all.

Bret: What was your projection for Shane Bieber before he stayed with the Jays? How surprised were you?

fried rice: how much you guess for bieber

Cubswon: Thx for your outstanding work! Please make sense of the Flaherty and Bieber option decisions. Extensions? Injury?

Ben Clemens: So, I had both Flaherty and Bieber on the list before they each opted in, though I actually had neither on my first pass b/c I thought they were both keeping their deals, then added them in b/c they seemed pretty cuspy

Ben Clemens: always better to model, source, and project someone if you’re in between, so we put both of them in. My “will this guy opt out” model is just a tiny subset of the contract model and said both of them wouldn’t, but the early rumblings were otherwise, and I definitely think both were close

Ben Clemens: I had Flaherty accepting a QO, so only barely more than he got, and I had Bieber getting the same deal as Woodruff, 2/17, 34 total

Ben Clemens: I thought Flaherty would be incentivized to opt out to clear the QO, but I suppose given how flat his market was last year even without a QO,  maybe it just wasn’t worth the risk

Ben Clemens: I actually thougth about marking Woodruff’s deal down after Bieber opted back in. As you can see in the list, I’m lower than the market on Woodruff; I projected him as getting more money than the 10 free agents I put in front of him

Ben Clemens: I just really don’t find buying post-injury starters in free agency that compelling this year

Ethan: If you’re the Mets would you prefer giving Tucker the big contract or Alonso 5/$150. I think long term moving Soto or Nimmo to 1B to improve defense at 1B and then replacing them with tucker who is at least average in OF seems like something that fits into the “run prevention” message Stearns has mentioned and they don’t lose that much if any offensive production by letting Alonso walk.

Ben Clemens: targeting run prevention by signing Kyle Tucker would really be something

Ben Clemens: Honestly, if I were GM’ing I think I’d probably want someone else to win the Tucker bidding

Ben Clemens: My model is more like 10/275 for him, but it doesn’t do top of market premium that well, so I threw in a ton of money there because the number one name seems to get a lot of helium

Ben Clemens: basically I really like Tucker but I don’t think I’d expect him to out-hit Alonso next year

Ben Clemens: and signing a guy who is average in an outfield corner just doesn’t matter to me defensively

Ben Clemens: I think the teams who go all out for Tucker will actually want an outfielder, specifically, not a 1B

Ben Clemens: that’s how I am thinking about it, at least

Kyle: Re: Bregman, do you see it as a straight 4/140, or do you think there are deferrals again bringing his AAV down.  The 4/140 would actually be increasing his AAV on a longer deal, despite being a year older and missing 1/3 of the year to injury.

Ben Clemens: Straight. I think that he will get a raise, yes. Last year’s felt like a pillow deal almost. I also think that the Sox are in a tough negotiating position here, and it would behoove them to add infield strength in a market where that is far from easy

Joe R: What did your model have on the Ha-Seong Kim opt-out? Seemed like one of the more up in the air ones among position players

Ben Clemens: yeah, cuspy as well

Ben Clemens: I threw him on the list because there was a lot of smoke from writers about him opting out

Ben Clemens: It felt like the kind of thing where it was sourced anonymously, sure, but many times by many people

Geneo: Which of Gallen, King, & Woodruff gets the most years. Do they all get a short-term, opt-out style deal?

Ben Clemens: I think King is gonna take the QO

Ben Clemens: I think it’d make sense for everyone, really

Ben Clemens: And I have both Gallen and Woodruff getting two years, but I’d be a lot more interested in extending to a third year for Gallen if it was a case of needing to stand out from teh crowd to get the deal done

Ben Clemens: I’m just terrified of Woodruff’s decline in stuff. Like, it was really bad, and even with that, he pitched for a little bit and got hurt again. I think you have to bake in some very real risk of catastrophic decline. I think the downside with Gallen is probably embarrassing fourth starter, whereas the downside with Woodruff is he never plays for you

Dan S.: The Orioles could use Harrison Bader for one year while Enrique Bradfield Jr. continues to develop in AAA. But they might not need him beyond that, at least as a regular in CF. What are the chances they could frontload the 2/30 offer you’re estimating, with something like 18M the first year and 12M the second? That way it’d be easier to trade him if needed, or justify keeping him as a 4th OF in 2027. How would a player feel about that kind of structure?

Ben Clemens: Players would be very happy with this structure

Ben Clemens: It’s more money! Upfront!

Ben Clemens: That said, it’s a pretty small difference in the grand scheme of things. If they decide to trade him next year, they could just attach money to make the same thing happen

Ben Clemens: If they were bumping up against the cap, or planning on doing so next year, then maybe you could get some shenanigans around the way the split yeras are considered if he’s traded after one. But basically I’d say if you would sign him to 18 y1 12y2, you should be happy to do 15/15

a man has no name: Please sir, can the Pirates please target a hitter or two this year. And if they were to magically do this, who do you think would be their best targets

Michael – FG since 2016: Ben – great novel… err article.   

Would the MLBPA or agents ever suggest going to a certain team for a pillow contract to take advantage of a stadium (ie hitters park for hitters, etc).      It sure seems like my Pirates get a LOT of LHPs in FA.

Ben Clemens: I thought these were pretty enjoyable as a pair

Ben Clemens: If the Pirates wanted to sign a hitter, I guess thye’d maybe want a corner outfielder? You can’t be happy with Jack Suwinski there, and I doubt they’re going to move on from Horwitz or Yorke right away on the infield. Meanwhile, a good shortstop costs more than the Pirates will ever pay, so that’s out, and this year isn’t a great market for them anyway

Ben Clemens: so like…. Bader? He could play a plus corner, and that’s very nice in spacious PNC

Ben Clemens: failing that, I honestly don’t see a lot of options. THere are a lot of meh bats that the Pirates might eventually sign, that’s their MO, but I don’t think they are great fits for many top players this year

The ghost of CBAs yet to come: Looking back at a lot of the signings and extensions, or lack thereof, of the Cubs the past several seasons, I get a strong sense that the Ricketts family believes there’s going to be a work stoppage and potential major restructuring of the MLB labor landscape in 2027. Do you think there are specific teams that are approaching this offseason with particular mind to next year’s CBA negotiations? Do you think there are some teams in position to take advantage of other teams lack of willingness to engage in long term deals? If so, who?

Ben Clemens: I mean, surely, right?

Ben Clemens: I think that ‘no team is considering next year’s CBA negotiations’ is a completely unrealistic position

Ben Clemens: As for what that means — well, try as I might, I haven’t yet gotten teams to send me a spreadsheet of their exact dollar preferences and how they vary based on otehr deals they make

Ben Clemens: so I’ll settle for ‘the market will be more segmented’

small e: If you’re the Red Sox, would you QO Giolito, or is there too much risk of him accepting it? They have the back of the rotation pretty well covered with young guys and it seems like he’s unlikely to be better in 26 than 25.

Ben Clemens: Oh I definitely would not

Ben Clemens: I assume he would hit the bid immediately

Ben Clemens: Gio is another guy who I have ranked behind several players I think he’ll out-earn – but even then, that’s at 2/14

Ben Clemens: and as convention, I’m gonna keep describing all contracts as years/AAV, in case I hadn’t mentiond that yet

Ben Clemens: basically I think that the peripherals were pretty gross, and I think that Steamer’s projection (4.70 ERA, 1.2 WAR in a full season) is about right, maybe a bit optimistic

Charlie R: Help me with some valuation confusion!  I keep seeing trade proposals (from writers, etc. not fans) involving Jarren Duran, and I am genuinely shocked by how much more people think needs to be added in a trade for a good SP (which is the majority of the proposals).  Even if you think 2024 was a big outlier, Duran is a 3-4+ WAR outfielder with three more years of team control, yet people insist that the Red Sox would have to add multiple top-100 prospects to get someone like Joe Ryan (or someone similar).  Even with pitchers generally commanding more, I just don’t get it – is the league view of Duran that much lower than it seems?

Charlie R: And to be clear from my last question re: Duran, I’m not necessarily saying the Twins would want him during a rebuild – you can insert other pitchers.  It just seems like writers are heavily discounting Duran’s value and I’m not sure what I’m missing.

Ben Clemens: Ah yes, ‘writers’

Ben Clemens: I’ll just say this

Ben Clemens: Duran’s never getting traded, there’s a value mismatch

Ben Clemens: like, 3-4+ WAR outfielder is one view

Ben Clemens: another is that of the projection systems, who think he’s a 2-3 WAR guy going forward

Ben Clemens: late breakouts like Duran, especially ones whose value is built around things like speed and defense, just don’t project well

Ben Clemens: maybe he’ll be the exception. people are. But I think that teams who would be acquiring Duran are treating him as a short-term proposition

Ben Clemens: as in, sure I like his age 28 season, but I’m down on the age 31 season that I’m also acquiring in this deal

Ben Clemens: and he’s not as cheap as you’d like, 7.7 million in your second year of arb (he already settled on that) is a pretty good pace to cap out around 15-20 mil

Ben Clemens: basically I think a lot of teams would like to have him as a good outfield starter for the present. But the Sox seem to be content to wait for someone to value him like a cornerstone

Ben Clemens: That makes sense to me! If they think he’s that, why would they trade him? But I just don’t see much going on here as a result

wheelhouse: most likely yankee besides bellinger in the top 50? i think it’s <10% that they even seriously bid on tucker

Ben Clemens: I dunno, a bunch of relievers?

Ben Clemens: I don’t think they’re a great fit for Tucker, agreed

Kyle: Did you have a prediction for Story prior to him opting in?

Ben Clemens: definitely not

Ben Clemens: I had him listed as ‘sure to decline opt out’

FA: How much does the imminent lockout impact teams willingness to commit long term dollars this offseason?

Andrew: Is there any concern with how the market will respond to an impending lockout? Did your model take into account the bigger markets teams concerns of a potential cap?

Ben Clemens: Oh, there’s definite concern, but it’s the kind of thing where if I told you I could quantify the effect, I’d just be lying

Ben Clemens: I erred on the side of shorter deals where I could, which makes a lot of sense, and my inflation rate for $/WAR is lower than it has been in recent years

Ben Clemens: But realistically, I’m a guy with a spreadsheet and some experience modeling financial derivatives, not someone sitting in a team board room and getting you the true best dirt

Ben Clemens: It’s a guess

Ben Clemens: also: no one’s sitting in a team board room and getting you the true best dirt, sadly

Simon: You mentioned Gleyber Torres, would you feel better about him as a potential target if he was amendable to moving to 1B or 3B this upcoming season?

Ben Clemens: Third? Sure. And I’m sure he’s amenable to a move there. First? No thanks, a first baseman with a 10% above average batting line is just not interesting to me

Ben Clemens: I don’t think Torres has basically ever displayed the kind of offense that would make me excited to put him at first

Jack: Had a lively discussion with friends about Sonny Gray this morning. Seemed like we disagreed mostly on how his no trade clause will be wielded (we saw Arenado be selective last offseason), and of course the money is a big obstacle too with the backloading. Any thoughts on likely landing spots?

Ben Clemens: I don’t actually think the money is an obstacle, to be honest. It’s possible that the strange shape of the deal matters more? So if Gray shoves this year, he can become a free agent

Ben Clemens: even if the team acquiring him exercises its club option

Ben Clemens: like, you can always pay down part of a deal if you think the money is what’s holding you back. But it seems like the bigger issue here is the lack of certain control plus not knowing what he wants to do. So I have no idea how his no trade clause will be wielded but presumably, he saw how much fun Arenado had with his (looked bad, annoyed Cards fans, bummer of a season afterwards) and is more willing to move

Sam: Hey Ben, thanks for all the hard work lately. Looking forward to all the offseason coverage. What am I missing on Cease? I get the concern with his two pitch reliance and command issues, but I think with his track record and age he clears $200 MM. Compared to someone like Framber, I struggle to see how teams won’t offer more length given his age. Curious to hear your thoughts.

Ben Clemens: I’m not wild about either Cease or Valdez, to be honest with you. I gave them both bumps as the top arms on the market, but I feel like there are meaningful red flags for both

Ben Clemens: I have Cease getting a little more because he’s younger, but I think that both of them are in the range of ‘this guy is nice, I probably would not be comfortable with him as my ace’

Ben Clemens: For the record my very simplistic model, which just uses ZiPS, Steamer, and a bunch of actual historical data, would give him even less

Ben Clemens: I think that it’s wrong, to be clear. I think that the fact that teams like aces (the only places where contracts have been surprising to the long side in recent yeras are premium starters) will help him

Ben Clemens: but basically, I don’t expect many guys to get more than 5 years this winter

Ben Clemens: I believe I only have three, and one of them is the special case of Murakami

Okra: You have mentioned a few times the decline in Woodruff’s stuff.  But apart from fastball velocity, what are you seeing?  Over 12 starts his K, BB, SwStr%, barrel% (32%, 5%, 12%, 7%) all look great and at career norms.

Ben Clemens: those aren’t stuff

Ben Clemens: maybe his results will work out

Ben Clemens: but like… I watched him pitch

Ben Clemens: and I went oh, his stuff’s not as good

Ben Clemens: like, you can’t have watched Woodruff this year and not thought that

Ben Clemens: maybe you think “oh he’s getting it done anyway”

Ben Clemens: but…. PitchingBot had him at a 55 stuff through 2023, 42 stuff in 2025. Stuff+ had him at 110 through 2023, 96 in 2025

Ben Clemens: this is not controversial. Maybe he can adjust and keep getting similar results with meaningfully worse pitches. I would not invest a ton of money trying to find out, if I were GM’ing

G4: Appreciated your note in the Intro about mid-tier pitching attracting higher relative FA investment than hitters. With what we’ve seen in year-over-year performance volatility, are there any RPs on your list that GM Ben would actually chase at their predicted contracts?

Ben Clemens: I actually like a lot of the guys at the back of the top 50

Ben Clemens: I totally agree with the natural pressures facing teams here, and I’d be acting the same way as them

Ben Clemens: it’s just not very interesting to me to sign a 1.5 WAR hitter (unless i need a backup catcher, that’s a very different market)

Ben Clemens: I think I’m probably higher on the relievers in the last 10 than fans are. I think that they’re a really useful way to fill out your team

fried rice: do these quasi-surprising opt-ins (flaherty, story, bieber) suggest players are scared of what the market might look like

Ben Clemens: Okay, so Story’s is just not surprising at all

Ben Clemens: the guy has played 900 PA in the last three years. He has a 92 wRC+ in that time. He’s 33. He’d barely be in the top 50 if he opted out, and it was like 3/20 or something

Ben Clemens: the other two? If I’d gotten those data points a week ago, I would probably be down a bit on my estimates, yes

Ben Clemens: I thought that both Flaherty and Bieber were so cuspy that I do think this tells you agents and players are down, directionally, on the market

Ben Clemens: but truthfully, this all happened in the last day, and I was too busy writing a managerial report card and redoing some blurbs and finalizing the publication schedule (and replacing those two guys in the 50 when they didn’t become free agents) that I just stuck with what i had

Thomas: Kinda shocked at how low Bichette is, given that he’s at least two years younger than all the position players ahead of him save Tucker. Do you just think he’s going to get overpaid? I’d feel better about him than Alonso for sure, and maybe Bregman and Bellinger. Schwarber’s such an odd case that it’s tough to judge

Bret: What do you give the odds that Bo Bichette is a SS in 2026 vs. a 2B?

Ben Clemens: so, yeah, that’s just my preference order

Ben Clemens: if I were the GM of a team, I’d just be afraid of giving Bichette a bag and then having him turn into a pumpkin too soon

Ben Clemens: the trajectory is terrifying!

Ben Clemens: I’m usually a risk it for the biscuit guy when it comes to top free agents but I think that Bichette “shouldn’t” clear that bar

Ben Clemens: like, if everyone evaluated players the exact way I do in my head

Ben Clemens: the thing is, he’s a Silver Slugger shortstop who’s 28, he’s gonna get paid. So even though I had a relatively low view of him in preference order, I’m fairly confident someone is going to give him a lot of money. I don’t know who, to be clear, but I do think he will

JT: Btw didn’t Yamamoto’s stuff grade out worse than Woodruff’s this year? They still owe him 260 M..

Ben Clemens: it didn’t! and while stuff models aren’t perfect, CHANGE in stuff models is more useful, because it lets you know if someone is getting worse or better

Ben Clemens: but look, if you think Yamamoto is worse than Woodruff, I don’t think I’m convincing you of anything

Phim: I’m not sure if the issue with Devin Williams this year was not being able to handle NY, but the pattern was that he would struggle in high leverage and dominate when demoted (.075/.205/.104 line against in low leverage situations). Small sample but if I were a big market GM I would at least be thinking about that before signing him as a closer.

Phim: That said, Williams looked OK in the playoffs so who knows?

Ben Clemens: I’m gonna be honest, one of my biggest leaks as a GM would be that i just don’t believe in this crap

Ben Clemens: I would absolutely not be thinking about that before signing him, and maybe that’s to my detriment

Jack: You mentioned you had 3 players getting 5 years or more…I assume that is Murakami like you said and then Tucker? Framber?

Ben Clemens: whoops, that should have said ‘more than five years’. And Tucker, Murakami, Bichette

not the lunch guy: I get there are red flags about Imanaga but… does opting out of 3/57 really make sense for the Cubs? Is that how down the market is?

Ben Clemens: I was surprised by this one, though it’s actually more like 3/65 given the posting agreement (15% of total deal gets paid to the BayStars)

Ben Clemens: but yeah, I was a little surprised, but I also think that they might just quickly come to an agreement on a similar deal and save some money

Ben Clemens: one really useful thing about QO’ing a player you want to re-sign is that no one else is going to give them more than $50 million if their value is in that rough range, because there’s a bright line: under 50, cheap penalties, over 50, big penalties

Ben Clemens: so now the Cubs have kinda capped Imanaga’s market, and that makes negotiating easier

Fin: Other than Bregman, are there any other top 20-30 free agents you see as good fits for the Red Sox? Schwarber and Alonso fit well in that the team needs more power, but poorly in that they clog up DH (Alonso will in 2-3 years at the latest) when they already have a surfeit of position players and need to rotate them around. What about SP–possible that they sign a mid-tier one to go with the one it seems like they’re aiming to trade for?

Ben Clemens: Yeah, I think that if they want to spend money on free agents and it’s not Bregman, it almost has to be pitching

Ben Clemens: I agree with your assessment of the bat-first guys, they just don’t feel like the right fits to me. Maybe Ha-Seong Kim? I will be honest and say I’ve considered his market less than the rest of the guys around him since I added him partway through the process, but he’s a far superior infield option to what they’ve been working with

Okra: I would be dying to get Shota Imanaga to sign if I were SF or Detroit.  He could really excel in a ballpark that suppresses home runs.

Ben Clemens: yeah, I could see those if the deal is short. I really am serious about the 50 mil thing, though

Ben Clemens: there’s a pretty strong chilling effect on guys whose market value would be right around that cutoff without the QO, and I think he’s gonna get hit hard by it

robertobeers: Tyler Rogers as the 5th reliever off the board feels the most correct position. With that in mind, how often is is RA9-WAR going to be above the 1-4 guys over the next 3 seasons?

Ben Clemens: twice on average

Ben Clemens: I wanted to put Rogers even higher, lol

Ben Clemens: in my first cut of the list he was the second reliever on the board. And at some point I said hey Ben, sure this is YOUR top 50, but you can’t just completely ignore what the market thinks

Billy: Giants seem like the perfect fit for Tucker, no? Need lefty bats, glaring hole in RF, more star power to at least pretend to keep up w LA, etc

Ben Clemens: Yeah, now that I could totally see

Ben Clemens: that’s the kind of team where Tucker’s ability to play an average corner outfield spot is very useful

Ben Clemens: and then yeah, lefty bats, I actually think he’s a good fit vibe wise for SF as a chill star, Posey has been trying to add stars

Ben Clemens: I’m not really sure the money adds up, but I bet you they’ll at least be kicking the tires

re: imanaga: The Cubs getting a massive discount on Imanaga because of strangely specific MLB rules again would be kinda funny. Two nickels, etc.

Ben Clemens: haha yes

Ben Clemens: I actually think a lot of guys get got by this particular one…. but yes, two different rules getting Imanaga is annoying

Ben Clemens: and honestly the posting rule kind of got him AGAIN here in that it made the Cubs owe more than he was gonna get, which made the deal look worse to them

Jack: Similar to the Giants-Tucker and Pirates bats question, I’m really curious how the Phillies rework the outfield. I think the only sure thing is Justin Crawford gets called up and Castellanos is gone one way or another. Tucker is big money but who wouldn’t at least inquire?

Ben Clemens: oh 100%. That’s another one that makes perfect sense to me

Gallo Enjoyer: Where would you rate Munetaka Murakami, on a scale of Joey Gallo (Yankees) to Joey Gallo (Rangers)

Ben Clemens: I watched a ton of video of Murakami for this, and I got a ton of advice from Eric as well, and yeah, I dunno man

Ben Clemens: high risk!

Ben Clemens: very clearly, the talent is there. Even with the strikeouts, he is flat out obliterating NPB pitching. I think I’m more like Joey Gallo Rangers, but the error bars are enormous

Krusty: Your write-up is great! Regarding Pete: Alonso redid his swing over the winter & improved significantly both in terms of outputs & under the hood. Obviously, it improves his near-term outlook but how much impact can that sort of improvement have on his aging curve generally?

Ben Clemens: mmmm…. I think that telling you with any certainty would be overstating my confidence, and really the ability of projection systems

Ben Clemens: lots of hitters redo their swings

Ben Clemens: sometimes it changes their career completely. sometimes it’s great for a year and then it breaks. sometimes it does nothing. You’d have to ask Dan for the exact set of the inputs he uses but I’ll say that I didn’t consider a swing change that much at all, I looked a lot more at the under the hood stats and results

Kevin: I have to be honest, I am a little disappointed in Fangraphs coverage of game 7. I don’t think one article does that game (which was arguable the greatest game in the history of the sport) justice.  Just my two cents.

Ben Clemens: Honestly, as someone who just put out 8000 words of content about John Schneider in the past two days, plus another 8000 about free agents, I think this chat is probably not the most reasonable place to complain about this

Ben Clemens: but uh, yeah, sorry? Look, we cover a LOT of baseball. I wish we could cover more

Ben Clemens: We’re always trying to cover more!

Jack: Is Schwarber really going to get 5 years? The variance for his future is amazing

Ben Clemens: I can’t see it, even though I too have seen rumors to that effect

Ben Clemens: Just…. too much for me, and too out of step with the way contracts have been going broadly

Okra: 2/30 for O’Hearn seems crazy to me since guys just like him are always cheap/available at the deadline.  Also, don’t have to squint too hard to see your prospect turning into a 1.5WAR 1B/OF/DH.  thoughts?

Ben Clemens: I think O’Hearn is clear of the dead zone, basically

Ben Clemens: I could definitely be wrong

Ben Clemens: but I think that he’s demonstrated a clear enough skill for multiple years that I don’t have to look too hard to find teams who would feel confident that he could out-hit their best lefty bat

Ben Clemens: best lefty prospect bat

Ben Clemens: But he’s clearly cuspy. And that’s how the list is, really. AFter the cluster of hitters that O’Hearn is in (Bader, Polanco, O’Hearn, Kim, Realmuto, Ozuna), there are almost no other bats of interest

Ben Clemens: I have two backup catchers and Luis Arraez, and no other hitters, getting more than like 1/8

Ben Clemens: so I do think that if I’m wrong on O’Hearn, it’s b/c you were right and he gets almost nothing

Sad Mariners fan: Chances M’s sign Naylor?

Ben Clemens: I think the chances of them signing a first baseman/DH are very high. I don’t feel that I have much edge in predicting who, to be honest with you

Jack: Any spots you like Ranger to end up on (assuming he won’t be back in Philly sadly)? Blue Jays, Red Sox, Orioles, Giants, Padres all come to mind

Ben Clemens: oh, interesting. I think the O’s are probably out in that they are notably hesitant to spend free agency money on pitchers, and so Suarez would be a weird one to break the bank for given their previous behavior

Ben Clemens: Giants makes sense to me if they don’t think they’re signing Tucker. Basically, more Logan Webbs seems good there

Joe R: Unless I’m misunderstanding, it sounds like you think Duran is staying in Boston (“I’ll just say this Duran’s never getting traded, there’s a value mismatch”). If so, who are they moving? They have to clear that outfield logjam somehow, no?

Ben Clemens: Well, I said ‘they have to clear that outfield logjam somehow’ last winter

Ben Clemens: and they traded Rafael Devers

Ben Clemens: so, I dunno. It’s a really interesting puzzle!

Ben Clemens: My two cents, as an armchair psychologist, is that they’re going to be very stubborn, trade no one, and live with the waste

Ben Clemens: I think that endowment effect is very real, and that once you get an idea in your head for what you need to trade someone, it’s very hard to settle for less

Ben Clemens: But I don’t think even the Sox know what they’re gonna do. So I definitely don’t know

Blue Myself Prematurely: Who are the best targets for the Jays this offseason? Bichette hurts to lose, but pitching seems like a more urgent need.

Ben Clemens: This is an old one, but I really enjoyed the screen name (this person had rpeviously submitted the question half-typed)

Ben Clemens: I actually think they should sign Bichette, haha. Move him to second. I just think it’s a year where I want to be out of the pitching market if I can swing it. The Toronto rotation isn’t that dire. Maybe Bichette and some good relievers? Or Merrill Kelly in the Max Scherzer role?

Guest: Any chance of teams offering any of the elite SP a longer deal like Fried? Both Framber and Cease are estimated at 5

Ben Clemens: there is definitely a chance

Ben Clemens: these things are super hard! i’m just guessing, you know?

Ben Clemens: I think that I’m on the short end for contract lengths almost across the board

Ben Clemens: now, in my defense, MLB teams also have been for years

Ben Clemens: Here’s a fun way of putting it: I took the top 40 names on my list b/c that’s how many another talent evaluator/writer also projected

Ben Clemens: as in, they had one for all 40

Ben Clemens: for those 40 players, I estimated 119 player-years worth of contract

Ben Clemens: so like, 3 yeras on average? and very few above 4

Ben Clemens: This person was at 148, so nearly 4 years on average

Ben Clemens: and I think they’re pretty much the median

Ben Clemens: I’m VERRRRRRRRRY heavy on the short deal plan this year

Okra: Does the looming strike in 2027 tank the trade value of guys with 2 years of control left?  M Gore, Joe Ryan, etc

Ben Clemens: Interesting question, but I don’t really think so

Ben Clemens: that said, those two guys are some of the most interesting valuation puzzles, because I think they’re who a lot of pitching-needy teams actually want

Ben Clemens: like, you don’t actually want seven years of Dylan Cease or whatever. You want two! and Joe Ryan can give you that

Ben Clemens: so I think that the Twins and Nats will have a lot of suitors for them this winter. I’m super curious to see what Washington’s plan looks like with the complete FO overhaul after so many years of continuity

Guest: Any realistic options you see as a good fit for Cleveland?  They have very little on the books for ’26, but have shown little willingness to spend.  Some help on offense is clearly needed

Ben Clemens: Austin Hedges

Ben Clemens: (actually, Hedges has already signed an extension with the Guardians)

Ben Clemens: I was joking with Meg that we should crowdsource Hedges just for funsies, and that’s how I found out thta he signed an exact duplicate of last year’s deal again

Ben Clemens: no, um, they should be trying to sign O’Hearn if his market actually dips

Ben Clemens: the only awkward part about that is that there are two great lefty starters in the ALC, but hey, maybe Skubal gets dealt

Ben Clemens: basically I can’t believe they go into next year with CJ Kayfus as a DH, like our rosters have them down now

Ben Clemens: and that feels like a cheap ish place to add players, where if you aren’t shopping at the top of the market (check!) and don’t have any great hitters in the upper minors (can’t say for sure, but it doesn’t look all that great, they seem to have a ton of middle infielders like always)

Ben Clemens: then you can go sign the ‘dead zone’ bats who otehr teams have no use for

Ben Clemens: Okay, this was really fun, but I have to run and go sleep for the next 75 days

Ben Clemens: I’m taking the next week and a half off, but I’ll return to my regular Monday chat window after that, and probably take many more questions about silly/non-baseball stuff then than I did today.

Ben Clemens: Have a wonderful week everyone, and thanks so much for tuning in and taking the time to ask questions.